http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m28556
Hezbollah versus the CIA's Cedar Revolution
Kurt Nimmo
November 26, 2006
As the engineered sectarian melt-down in Lebanon crawls forward, it is
interesting to read the neocon columnists as they bewail the erosion of the
"Cedar Revolution," that is to say the neocon-neolib subversion of Lebanese
politics.
"In this sense, the Gemayal assassination is one of the opening shots in
Hezbollah's showdown with supporters of the Cedar Revolution," writes Mario
Loyola for the National Review Online.
But what of this so-called Cedar Revolution? Is it purely a Lebanese
political phenomenon, having risen out of the anger and opposition to the
presence of Syria in the country?
Hardly.
"Standing behind Lebanon's current effort to build democracy are U.S. and
other international aid groups. Many had spent the past years building the
foundations for democratic change. Now they can help ensure the success of what
is known as the Cedar Revolution-named after the national tree depicted on the
Lebanese flag," explains USAID, a documented CIA asset, now more precisely an
asset for the Pentagon and the State Department, as noted by Bill Berkowitz
earlier this year.
"The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) functions
as an instrument of CIA penetration into civil society, by enabling the
'legitimate' funding of millions of dollars to promote U.S. foreign policy
abroad and influence internal politics of foreign nations while avoiding
Congressional scrutiny," writes Eva Golinger. According to Ralph McGehee, a
former CIA agent, and other former CIA operatives, the agency manipulated the
trade union movement in the Philippines through USAID front organizations.
"In a recent article in the Journal of Contemporary Asia, American
sociologist James Petras describes how progressive non-government organizations
can be neutralized, if not coopted, thru US government, big business-backed
funding agencies or CIA fronts and conduits masquerading as foundations,"
writes Roland G. Simbulan for the Manila Studies Program at the University of
the Philippines.
The purpose, according to Petras, is "to mystify and deflect discontent
away from direct attacks on the corporate/banking power structure and profits
toward local micro-projects .that avoids class analysis of imperialism and
capitalist exploitation." Neo-liberalism today, according to Petras, encourages
NGOs to "emphasize projects, not movements; they 'mobilize' people to produce
at the margins, not to struggle to control the means of production and wealth;
they focus on the technical financial aspects of projects not on structural
conditions that shape the everyday lives of people." While using the language
of the Left such as "people empowerment," "gender equality," "sustainable
development" etc., these NGOs funded by USAID, the National Endowment for
Democracy (NED), Asia Foundation, etc. have become linked to a framework of
collaboration with donors and even with government agencies with whom they have
partnerships that subordinate activity to nonconfrontational politics, rather
than militant mass mobilization.
But it is not simply Asia where USAID works its "democratic" magic, more
accurately described as cultural and economic voodoo. The CIA (and Pentagon)
connected so-called NGO has turned up in Iraq, Haiti, the Palestinian
Territories, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Nigeria, and elsewhere.
It is especially interesting to read the account of USAID interference in
Lebanon, as recounted by the Lebanese socialist Bassem Chit. "Lebanon's 'cedar
revolution' is being touted as the shining example of regime change on the
cheap. Since the mass protest drove out the Syrians last year, Lebanon has seen
an ascending flow of US interference. It varies from direct political
manipulation and media campaigns to discreet funding of civil movements through
'NGOs," Chit wrote in May of this year.
It is worth quoting Chit at length:
A few months after the protests I received a call from a friend telling
me that a US NGO called Freedom House wanted to meet "Lebanese activists".
Being a well known activist on the left and one of the organizers of the
anti-war movement, I was intrigued by the purpose of the meeting. A few of us
were invited to an expensive British restaurant in one of Beirut's trendy
neighborhoods.
An American-Lebanese woman representing Freedom House was accompanied
by a "retired revolutionary" from Ukraine. The guy was eager to get us on
board, and boasted of the joys of being "US-funded" - he added that after
Ukraine's Orange Revolution he even had the opportunity to "meet George Bush."
He obviously thought that was enough to close the deal.
After some questioning about the intentions of Freedom House it became
clear they wanted to "fund youth movements to help the process of
democratization". At that point we told them that if they really wanted
democracy to thrive in Lebanon they should leave the country immediately.
Undeterred, they returned a few months later wanting to fund "transparency
workshops and projects". Again we refused.
That the US is wanting to finance Lebanese leftists might seem odd, but
it is part of a pattern of political interference that emerged since the
invasion of Iraq. During the "cedar revolution" US ambassador Jeffrey Feltman
invited many of the leaders of the anti-Syrian movement to dinner parties. The
US embassy also had a direct hand in fomenting the anti-Syrian protests.
The New York Post reported how, at the height of last year's protests,
"the CIA and European intelligence services were quietly giving money and
logistical support to organizers of the anti-Syrian protests to ramp up
pressure on Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. The secret program is similar to
previous support of pro-democracy movements in Georgia and Ukraine, which also
led to peaceful demonstrations."
(.)
Now the country is awash with dubious NGOs. Among them is the United
States Committee for a Free Lebanon, headed by Ziad Abdel Nour. The son of
wealthy right wing Lebanese MP, Nour let the cat out of the bag when he
declared, "We have absolutely no problem with heavy US involvement in Lebanon.
On an economic level, military level, political level, security level. whatever
it is. Israel is the 51st state of the United States. Let Lebanon be the 52nd
state. And if the Arabs don't like it, tough luck."
(.)
As well as trying to tempt the left into its orbit and bankroll the
many genuine civil movements, there is a whiff of arrogance about the US in
Lebanon. Embassy staff and their hangers-on regularly colonize the cafes and
restaurants in downtown Beirut. It seems no expense will be spared to wine and
dine their way to regime change.
Yet the US has a problem. The sparkle has gone out of the "cedar
revolution" and, far from delivering stability and prosperity, the country is
sinking into economic malaise. The slogan that marked the revolution, "We have
had enough of your lies, now leave", is still being chanted, but now its is not
aimed at the Syrians but at the US-backed politicians that run the country. You
can't buy that.
It is interesting Chit mentions the Freedom House. This so-called NGO is
stacked with neocons and neolib one-worlders, including James "World War Four"
Woolsey, a former director of the CIA and VP for Booz Allen Hamilton, and the
Rockefeller protégé Zbigniew Brzezinski, the engineer behind the Afghan
Mujahideen, eventually to conveniently morph into al-Qaeda. Others include the
Trilateralist Samuel P. Huntington, architect of the "clash of civilizations"
currently underway, and Clinton national security adviser Anthony Lake, former
Kissinger lackey and Clinton's pointman on the bombing of Yugoslavia.
It now appears all the hard work of the neocons and the USAID, NED, and
other reactionary NGOs-work designed to subvert indigenous political activity
frowned upon by the one-world types and their neocon kissing cousins-is for
naught. "Hezbollah may be about to win power in Lebanon," laments Mario Loyola.
"But in the political dialogue of Lebanon-and the Arab world-Hezbollah has
already won the argument. The murderous law of Hezbollah's many grievances is
now the real constitution of that country. That is the meaning of the martyrdom
of Pierre Gemayal, and it is a tragedy for all of us."
Of course, Mr. Loyola is speaking the language of his masters-the
Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, yet another neocon "think tank"
aligned with the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute, and the
above mentioned Freedom House.
Predictably, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies includes on
its roster the usual suspects, including the Ritchie Rich Steve Forbes, Jack
Kemp, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Newt Gingrich, Joseph Lieberman, James Woolsey, Frank
Gaffney, William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, and Richard Perle.
Obviously, with friends like these, Lebanon needs no enemies.
:: Article nr. 28556 sent on 26-nov-2006 19:31 ECT
:: The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=28556
:: The incoming address of this article is :
kurtnimmo.com/?p=674
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the
author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .
<<attachment: hezbollahposter.jpg>>
